rigorousintuition.ca

i am now confused,
what is the

propaganda of global warming

fisrt name Al...

But so what, what about other scenarios that aren't as bad as the worse cases?

So what the whole field is polluted by corrupt science, dodgy data, and pr hyperbole masquerading as hard science?

So what that aforesaid pr hyperbole comes from the Club of Rome types.

So what?

Who cares?

I guess they want the plebs to green up. I told you the NWO were the good guys. I want the plebs to green up too. I just worry that they want less folk on their nice green earth so that they can enjoy it properly. Also I don't appreciate the fact that they lie to me all the time through their mass media mouthpieces.

I think it would be nice if all the human industry and ingenuity devoted to WAR could be diverted to good husbandry schemes for Mother Earth.

You would be better off witholding taxes than switching to powersaving light bulbs.

Hey smiths, about this sophisticated intelligence operation..

But it emerged that he had been misinformed about key facts. One of his grounds for believing a high-powered team of professionals were behind the leak, he said, was that there had been a wide spread of emails going back decades "between very different people". He told the Independent: "The emails date back to 1996, so someone was collecting the data over many years."

In fact, as UEA confirmed today, all the files and emails were archived on a single backup server on the Norwich campus. Once access was gained, it would have been simple to copy all the material.

That was the basis of his claim of evidence of an intelligence operation spanning decades.

Doh!

The guy's a raving paranoid. I love calling people that.

You can find ten year old emails on my hard drive right now.

I find it hard to believe that this bozo was the UK government's former chief scientist. Er no, hang on, scratch that.

So what the whole field is polluted by corrupt science, dodgy data, and pr hyperbole masquerading as hard science?

come on hammer, you can do better than that rubbish,
crikey i thought the '9/11 was an inside job' conspiracy was complex and sophisticated

image the planning that goes into getting every scientific position in the world filled with pawns who corrupt science and data

what an epic

Smiths, I think you know what 'polluted' means.

So what the whole field is polluted by corrupt science, dodgy data, and pr hyperbole masquerading as hard science?

The hard science is its own thing, all the crap in the media comes from both sides.


This Sunday it'll be a year since the black saturday fires in melbourne. In that time there have been three heatwaves nearly as serious as the one that preceded that day. Up here its been the busiest season in years, as busy as the drought in the early part of the last decade, despite 2 floods one record breaking in the last two years.

Thats part of a trend of increasing rates of serious fires over the past 60 and especially the past 20 years.

I'd say in answer to the original question, thats bad enough. Whatever case scenario we end up with.

So yeah so what, an article gets posted saying the worst case scenarios that get bandied about won't happen, who cares - whats happening now isn't good and it isn't looking like getting better soon.

"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" ~ Jeremy Paxman

"Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is...part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes....is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible."

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... -pies.html

you are confusing cause and effect tazmic,

the fact that well connected people are attempting to enrich themselves from the opportunities that climate change creates tells us nothing whatsoever about the science or the phenemenom

personally i dont trust al gore one bit, but that does not impact one bit on thirty plus years of scientists around the globe reaching a consensus, that we are almost certainly creating climate change

now,

i have asked repeatedly on this thread and i will ask again, please direct me to the articles and sites that show why the scientific consensus is wrong
and,
please put forward theories, backed by evidence of what alternative phenomena has created seven decades each hotter than the last

joehillhoist:

According to strict scientific method AGW can be disproved. (But not proved... if any of the science that supports AGW is shown to be wrong then AGW will be disproven, and the whole thing will disappear into history. As of yet no one has shown the science to be wrong.)



True science can be proven correct or incorrect accurately using what we now honestly think we know. This is not science and it lacks honesty. What is being offered right now is a 50/50 toss up with the winnings going to the Trading Carboneers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ben D:

Good grief! ....Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force

Quote:
The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilising force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow.

-snip-

The CIA late last year established a centre to collect intelligence on climate change. Earlier this month, CIA officials sent emails to environmental experts in Washington seeking their views on climate change impacts around the world, and how the agency could keep tabs on what actions countries were taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Well at least now the CIA/Pentagon and Osama Bin Laden are both in agreement on Climate Change. Perhaps the old team can get together again.





Don't worry. In 10 years when this has obviously become a scam, the same people that believe in the scam right now will be calling it a scam, and the team will be together again, on this issue at least. The believers intentions are noble and admirable, no matter how far off the mark they may be. I have respect and admiration for believers though because they ardently fight for what they believe is right.

This is about carbon trading, and not about climate change. Climate change is a vehicle to usher in carbon trading. Pollution is a serious issue that should be addressed before we all drown in our own poison, but climate change is a Red Herring for carbon trading.

Climate change is watch the right hand as it hypnotizes you, while the left hand arranges carbon trading right under our noses. It is magic. Nothing more.

The roster of players that initially orchestrated this game, the same players and ilk of players that orchestrate all the biggest magic shows in history, clearly demonstrate that this should be considered another magic show, until proven otherwise.

PT Barnum himself couldn't top this one due to the fact that ultimately...the premise is unproveable. The perfect magic show, ultimately, never has a conclusion that can be proven. Time will be the judge of this magic show. After this audience dies and is buried the next audience will be just as enthralled by the ringmasters, even more so because they will have been born into it and it will seem like truth.

If people lived for 1000 years these magic acts would be much harder to pull off because the audience would become jaded.

It is very hard to jade an audience when the audience only lives 70 years, and the magicians write the history.

Quote Howling Rainbows: "PT Barnum himself couldn't top this one, due to the fact that ultimately.....the premise is unprovable."

Actually most "true believers" accept that carbon trading is a fucking joke.

In fact, really most of bollocks about climate change thats happened since the stern report has been about the fuckers that caused the problem saying something like:

"OK so how can we make money out of this."

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Actually most "true believers" accept that carbon trading is a fucking joke.
In fact, really most of bollocks about climate change thats happened since the stern report has been about the fuckers that caused the problem saying something like:

"OK so how can we make money out of this."

Joe, you are getting closer to my understanding. The "true believers" have been and are being played (deceived) into playing the role of activists to "save the planet", all the time serving the interests of those making money out of it.

IOW, without the "true believers" of which there are legion, they will fail to succeed in their goal of destroying all opposition, i.e. the skeptics who can see through the scam.

BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, had climate change as its headline news:

(for where it works:)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 2_02_2010/

UN climate body IPCC 'regrets' blunders:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 494793.stm

Pielke's commentary:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -ipcc.html

"Instead, Professor Field tried to talk over me and deny, deny, deny. As I said in the interview, this issue is not ambiguous. The studies are not equivocal. There is no signal of rising temperatures in the disaster record. Period. Maybe there will be in the future, but there wasn't in 2006, when the IPCC deadline for publication occurred and there is not now. Further, both the "mystery graph" and the falsification of my views are unambiguous failures of the IPCC process to ensure that accurate information is included in its reports. How can this be denied?

Why the IPCC has chosen to take a stand on this issue -- to defend the indefensible -- is beyond me."

Ben D wrote:

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Actually most "true believers" accept that carbon trading is a fucking joke.
In fact, really most of bollocks about climate change thats happened since the stern report has been about the fuckers that caused the problem saying something like:

"OK so how can we make money out of this."

Joe, you are getting closer to my understanding. The "true believers" have been and are being played (deceived) into playing the role of activists to "save the planet", all the time serving the interests of those making money out of it.

IOW, without the "true believers" of which there are legion, they will fail to succeed in their goal of destroying all opposition, i.e. the skeptics who can see through the scam.

So the whole thing was a 30 year scam to profit off an ets?

Joe Hillshoist wrote:

Ben D wrote:

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Actually most "true believers" accept that carbon trading is a fucking joke.
In fact, really most of bollocks about climate change thats happened since the stern report has been about the fuckers that caused the problem saying something like:

"OK so how can we make money out of this."

Joe, you are getting closer to my understanding. The "true believers" have been and are being played (deceived) into playing the role of activists to "save the planet", all the time serving the interests of those making money out of it.

IOW, without the "true believers" of which there are legion, they will fail to succeed in their goal of destroying all opposition, i.e. the skeptics who can see through the scam.

So the whole thing was a 30 year scam to profit off an ets?

Joe, there is no monolithic whole thing, it's not just about climate change, it's all about the continuation of a successful working MO of the 'smarter' deceiving the less smart for profit utilizing humanity's personal and collective survival fear to alter/manipulate the human contemporary conceptualization of reality.